The Four Horsemen: the Nuclear Apocalypse of 1962

The main reason was that widespread looting, rioting and general lawlessness gripped major parts of the country
Those who had nothing took what they could while those who had something tried to protect it, in both cases at all costs.
It wouldn’t take long for ethnic strife to break out as Eastern European countries were no longer kept in line by Moscow.
I'm disappointed in you, Onkel. You've cloven to the terrible stereotype that humans are one crisis away from becoming murderous psychotics when time and again, whether war, disaster, famine, or accident, the instinctive inclination of the overwhelming majority of humanity is to sit tight, await/seek help, and assist those around you.
 
Italy had seen half a dozen megaton range nuclear strikes concentrated in Apulia to take out the American Jupiter missiles stationed there and Rome, Naples and Milan had been destroyed too. The government in Turin started to rebuild while struggling against the resurgent Cosa Nostra and tensions that threatened to create a north-south split.
I don't know if Turin is a good choice. In an emergency like this, I'd think the government would go to a more central and well-connected location. Bologna or Florence are probably the best option: the first is a really important railway node, the second has already been an Italian capital. And both are kinda central.
 

marathag

Banned
Not only those. It would have been hit with its own bomb. There was a bunker in Holgate. It was for monitoring fallout but would still probably have been a target.
Given Soviet Missile reliability at this point, could happen. Could have blown up on launch, or rentered wrong and RV burned up, or just a fizzle on the warhead.
 

marktaha

Banned
I a bit surprise that Latin America besides two countries wasn't really hit. You think someone were remember to hit their major cities too.

At least the USA won the cold war. Through the Chinese are still mostly in intact. Weird that John were removed them from the target list.
What reason to bomb and Latin American cities outside Cuba? How would things have been going on in Southern Africa?
 
What reason to bomb and Latin American cities outside Cuba? How would things have been going on in Southern Africa?
Strategic for me it be mostly to prevent anyone from taking advantage in the post war era. As the Western powers try to rebuild after the the bombs drop.

Now personally it be more of a if I living in a post nuke apcolypase wasteland than your joining it.
 

marathag

Banned
I'm disappointed in you, Onkel. You've cloven to the terrible stereotype that humans are one crisis away from becoming murderous psychotics when time and again, whether war, disaster, famine, or accident, the instinctive inclination of the overwhelming majority of humanity is to sit tight, await/seek help, and assist those around you.
Then again, we don't have a real WWIII example to see how one devastated community deals with refugees.
But we can look tonthe 1918 Spanish Flu on how some told visitors to keep on going.
 
I'm disappointed in you, Onkel. You've cloven to the terrible stereotype that humans are one crisis away from becoming murderous psychotics when time and again, whether war, disaster, famine, or accident, the instinctive inclination of the overwhelming majority of humanity is to sit tight, await/seek help, and assist those around you.
Warlord era china is a pretty good example of how this isn't always the case
 
Great TL, as someone's already mentioned not many timelines deal with the aftermath of a hypothetical third world war in 1962. Just a few observations though:

- You mentioned Portugal surviving intact as a neutral power, Portugal was in NATO at the time and was still under a rabidly anti-communist dictatorship. I imagine the Russians wouldn't have let them off the hook especially with their colonial empire still intact in the early 1960s.
- What would have been the situation with the Baltic states? As far as I'm aware the US government never explicitly recognised their annexation, would they have tried to spare them of too much damage given their position?
- Not really a query but more of an observation, the OTL northern hemisphere winter in 1962-63 was one of the coldest on record (the coldest in 150 years in the UK and Ireland), I imagine that combined with the nuclear winter and widespread famine would be absolutely catastrophic across Europe in particular, in the short term.
 

marathag

Banned
I imagine the Russians wouldn't have let them off the hook especially with their colonial empire still intact in the early 1960s
Portugal is out of SS-4 range, so would have to try bombers or waste a scarce ICBM or sub missile.
To me, very probable they aren't targeted. The USSR just doesn't have much for 1500 mile range at this time.
 

marathag

Banned
What would have been the situation with the Baltic states? As
Sadly, USSR had a number of SS-4 bases, and a number of SA-2 batteries and airfields in thise territories.
All targeted.

The only 2ndWorld countries that didn't seem to have a lot of targeting was Yugoslavia, and lesser extent Albania.
 
I'm disappointed in you, Onkel. You've cloven to the terrible stereotype that humans are one crisis away from becoming murderous psychotics when time and again, whether war, disaster, famine, or accident, the instinctive inclination of the overwhelming majority of humanity is to sit tight, await/seek help, and assist those around you.

Whilst a nuclear war more than anything would definitely generate unrest and mass hysteria, you do have a point. I added some nuance to those parts you quoted.

I don't know if Turin is a good choice. In an emergency like this, I'd think the government would go to a more central and well-connected location. Bologna or Florence are probably the best option: the first is a really important railway node, the second has already been an Italian capital. And both are kinda central.

Good idea.

Great TL, as someone's already mentioned not many timelines deal with the aftermath of a hypothetical third world war in 1962. Just a few observations though:

- You mentioned Portugal surviving intact as a neutral power, Portugal was in NATO at the time and was still under a rabidly anti-communist dictatorship. I imagine the Russians wouldn't have let them off the hook especially with their colonial empire still intact in the early 1960s.
- What would have been the situation with the Baltic states? As far as I'm aware the US government never explicitly recognised their annexation, would they have tried to spare them of too much damage given their position?
- Not really a query but more of an observation, the OTL northern hemisphere winter in 1962-63 was one of the coldest on record (the coldest in 150 years in the UK and Ireland), I imagine that combined with the nuclear winter and widespread famine would be absolutely catastrophic across Europe in particular, in the short term.

1. Portugal: what was I thinking there? Don't know how I slipped up, but thanks for pointing it out. I edited that.
2. Baltic States would be toast due to missile bases there, unfortunately.
3. You're absolutely correct in your observation.
 
I don't know if Turin is a good choice. In an emergency like this, I'd think the government would go to a more central and well-connected location. Bologna or Florence are probably the best option: the first is a really important railway node, the second has already been an Italian capital. And both are kinda central.

While i will really like Bologna as the new italian capital as it's my city of birth, i think that Florence it's more probable
 
Kahn's seminal work On Thermonuclear war was published in 1960, and the insights from it were likely pretty much digested by the US high command.
It seems to me that in a situation where you have a significant advantage in force (as in the US in the 1960s, not so much in the 1980s), going full Monty immediately upon the launching of the first nuclear torpedo (including nuclear depth charging every Soviet sub you're tracking if you can't kill him with a trailing sub's regular armament ) is the course of action likely to give you the smallest expected value of casualties. For one thing you're likely to destroy most of the Soviet ICBMs on the launch pad and a lot of their bombers as well. Escalating by batches just gets a lot more of your countrymen killed.
 
The Troika that ran the Soviet Union, they did not survive? I thought they had fled to bunkers in the countryside
Either their bunkers were caved in by nukes or their guards, angry at them for leading their country to doomsday, murdered them in the aftermath of the nuclear strikes.
 
Last edited:
It was mentioned that Japan was hit by six nukes. Given that this will be the second time the country has been nuked (after WW2), I have to wonder what this will do to the morale and psyche of the Japanese people.

I'm also guessing on the practical side, there will be no economically powerful Japan with a potent automobile and electronics industry like there was in the 1970s and 1980s as there was in OTL.
 

marathag

Banned
It was mentioned that Japan was hit by six nukes. Given that this will be the second time the country has been nuked (after WW2), I have to wonder what this will do to the morale and psyche of the Japanese people.

I'm also guessing on the practical side, there will be no economically powerful Japan with a potent automobile and electronics industry like there was in the 1970s and 1980s as there was in OTL.
The two in '45 are firecrackers compared to H-Bombs.
That said, they came back from every city they had over 100k in population, at least 50% destroyed
Okinawa would be the one in the roughest shape, given that was where most of the US Military was at, including the Mace cruise missiles. I would say the Soviets would have targeted there above Japan itself, but would try for Tokyo and the other large port cities like Nagoya, Kobe and Osaka

Main Japanese problem is fallout from the Soviet and Chinese hits
 
Top